If a Hillsborough County arrest report says the alleged victim is in a “potentially lethal situation,” that line came from a checklist an officer read at the scene, and it is not a finding about what happened. I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm, a former police academy instructor, and a former Chief Operations Officer of the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office, where I oversaw a staff of over 100 attorneys. Our attorneys are now seeing this label in Hillsborough County domestic violence reports, including cases where the only alleged contact was a push, and we challenge it at first appearance, at bond, and before trial.

What is Florida’s domestic violence lethality assessment?

Florida’s domestic violence lethality assessment is a mandatory set of 12 questions an officer must ask the alleged victim whenever the domestic violence allegation is against an intimate partner. Section 741.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes, requires the assessment “regardless of whether an arrest is made.” The Legislature added the requirement in 2024, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) adopted a statewide form titled the State of Florida Domestic Violence Lethality Assessment.

Some people call it a “domestic lethality assessment” or a “DV lethality screen.” The official purpose is narrow. Under section 741.29(2)(f), the officer advises the alleged victim of the result and refers that person to the nearest certified domestic violence center, such as The Spring of Tampa Bay in Hillsborough County.

The statute also requires the officer to note the “score” in the written police report under section 741.29(3)(d). That one line is how a services referral ends up in front of a judge. If you are facing a domestic battery charge, our Tampa domestic violence defense attorney page explains how our firm defends these cases from the first hearing forward.

The scale is large. In 2024, Hillsborough County recorded 6,553 domestic violence offenses, according to FDLE data published on Florida Health CHARTS. Each intimate-partner case among them now requires a lethality assessment, and many reports carry a “potentially lethal” notation.

What questions are on the Florida lethality assessment?

The officer must ask all 12 questions “in the same or similar wording and in the same order,” under section 741.29(2)(e). Every question goes to the alleged victim. The accused person is never asked anything. Here is how the answers drive the result.

Notice the word “ever” in most of the questions. The assessment asks about the entire relationship, with no time limit and no requirement that anything be corroborated. Notice also that questions 7 and 8 describe ordinary life events. Someone who moved out and lost a job has already answered two of the four secondary questions.

What does “potentially lethal” mean on a police report?

“Potentially lethal” on a Florida police report means the alleged victim’s answers met the statutory referral trigger, or the officer believed the person was at risk. It does not mean a judge, a doctor, or a scientist found that anyone is dangerous. The FDLE form has no “high,” “medium,” or “low” category. It has five check boxes, and only two of them produce the label:

• The victim is in a potentially lethal situation based on score.
• The victim is in a potentially lethal situation based on the officer’s belief.

The other choices are that the victim declined, the officer could not administer the screen, or the victim is not in a potentially lethal situation. The difference between “based on score” and “based on the officer’s belief” matters. An officer’s belief is opinion, and Florida law limits officer opinion testimony, as explained below.

The narrative and the form do not always agree. In one Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office report our firm reviewed this fall, involving an allegation of pushing, the deputy’s narrative said the alleged victim was in a “potentially lethal situation.” The attached form, filled out by a different deputy, had the box checked “not in a potentially lethal situation.” In another HCSO report, involving allegations of strangulation and false imprisonment, the answers met the score trigger on three high-risk questions, but the deputy checked the “officer’s belief” box instead. The label is only as accurate as the person filling it out, which is why our attorneys read the form itself and never rely on the narrative’s summary of it.

The same label also covers very different cases. A single “yes” to any of the first four questions produces exactly the same “potentially lethal” result as a case involving binding, strangulation, and hospital treatment. The form has no way to tell a judge which one is in front of them.

The form itself admits the label’s limits. Its closing note on the FDLE statewide lethality assessment form says: “Although most victims who are believed to be in a potentially lethal situation would not be expected to be killed, these victims face a much higher risk than other victims of intimate partner violence.” That sentence, from the government’s own form, belongs in front of any judge who reads the label.

Where did Florida’s lethality assessment come from?

Florida’s lethality assessment comes from victim-advocacy research on intimate partner homicide. The research behind it began with Dr. Jacquelyn Campbell’s Danger Assessment and her study of intimate partner homicides, published as Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results From a Multisite Case Control Study (American Journal of Public Health, 2003). In 2005, the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence condensed that work into an 11-question “Lethality Screen” for police officers.

In Florida, the mandate was first filed in 2024 as Senate Bill 610, which Tampa Bay 28 reported as “the Gabby Petito Act”. It became law through Senate Bill 1224, which passed 40 to 0 in the Senate and 112 to 0 in the House and took effect July 1, 2024, according to the Florida Senate bill summary for CS/CS/CS/SB 1224.

FDLE then convened a workgroup chaired by Joe Petito of the Gabby Petito Foundation. Its members included a Tampa Police Department deputy chief and the Pinellas County Sheriff. The FDLE Lethality Assessment Executive Workgroup Report records three facts every defense lawyer should know:

1. The workgroup first voted to use the copyrighted Maryland program, then rescinded that vote 9 to 1 because of copyright, cost of more than $30,000 plus annual fees, and other barriers.
2. The Maryland program’s administrator told the workgroup that the screen is evidence-based only when the questions are asked verbatim and in a specific order, and that his organization does not recommend making the assessment mandatory by statute.
3. The report states: “It is important to note that these questions in statute are not evidence-based.”

Florida adopted the statutory questions anyway. The statewide form, FDLE-DVLA-001, is incorporated into Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.00212. Officers are trained through a one-hour FDLE online lethality assessment course for law enforcement, which every officer had to complete by October 1, 2026. Under the rule, an officer who misses that deadline has his or her certification placed on inactive status until the agency verifies completion.

How accurate is a lethality assessment?

A lethality screen is good at catching the rare case that turns severe, and poor at telling which flagged cases will. That tradeoff is deliberate. The researchers who studied the Maryland screen designed it to avoid missing anyone, which means it flags many people who never go on to be seriously hurt.

The specificity figure comes from The Lethality Screen: The Predictive Validity of an Intimate Partner Violence Risk Assessment for Use by First Responders (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2017), a study of 254 women screened at police calls in a Southwestern state. A specificity of 21% means that roughly four out of five women who did not experience severe or near-lethal violence afterward were still flagged. The National Institute of Justice summary, How Effective Are Lethality Assessment Programs for Addressing Intimate Partner Violence?, reported that six to seven women were incorrectly screened as high risk for every one correctly identified.

Two more points matter in court. Those studies measured the validated Maryland screen, and Florida does not use it. And no study validated any version of the screen as evidence that a charged battery happened. A tool designed to send people to a shelter hotline was never tested as proof of guilt.

Can a lethality assessment affect bond in Hillsborough County?

Yes. The lethality assessment most often hurts an accused person at first appearance, because the “potentially lethal” notation is in the arrest report the judge reads. Florida treats domestic violence as a “dangerous crime” under section 907.041, Florida Statutes, and a person arrested for a dangerous crime cannot receive nonmonetary release at first appearance once the judge finds probable cause.

Under section 741.2901(3), Florida Statutes, a person arrested for domestic violence stays in custody until brought before a judge, and the judge “shall consider the safety of the victim” in setting bail. The same statute lists the history the State Attorney’s Office must gather for first appearance: prior domestic violence arrests, other arrests, prior injunctions, and prior walk-in complaints. The lethality assessment is not on that list.

In Hillsborough County, pretrial services supervision is not available as a release option, though some nearby counties offer it. That makes the bond amount and the no-contact terms the whole fight. Our firm’s guide to how a bond hearing works in Tampa walks through that process. At first appearance or a later bond hearing in Hillsborough County criminal court, our attorneys ask the judge to weigh the facts in the report, not the word “lethal,” and we put FDLE’s “not evidence-based” finding in front of the court.

Can prosecutors use a lethality assessment at trial in Florida?

A Florida prosecutor faces serious legal barriers to using a lethality assessment as evidence of guilt. As of October 2026, our research found no Florida appellate decision ruling on the admissibility of the section 741.29 assessment. Established Florida law points against it on several grounds.

Officer opinion on guilt. In Martinez v. State, 761 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2000), the lead detective told the jury he had “no doubt” the defendant committed the murders. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that a witness’s opinion on guilt is inadmissible and that the danger is greatest when it comes from a police officer. A “potentially lethal” box checked “based on the officer’s belief” is officer opinion.

Bolstering the accuser. In Cavaliere v. State, 147 So. 3d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), a detective told the jury the child complainant “wasn’t a joke” and was acting appropriately. The Second District Court of Appeal, which hears appeals from Hillsborough County, reversed for a new trial because the officer vouched for the complainant’s credibility. An officer’s lethality label puts the State’s stamp on the accuser’s version of events.

Profile evidence. In Flanagan v. State, 625 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1993), the State used a “sex offender profile” to suggest the defendant fit the type. The Florida Supreme Court held that profile testimony “implies an infallibility not found in pure opinion testimony” and that using it to prove guilt was an improper attack on character. A risk-factor checklist works the same way.

Expert reliability. Section 90.702, Florida Statutes, requires expert testimony to be “the product of reliable principles and methods.” In Petriciolet v. State, 442 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. App. 2014), a Texas appeals court held it was error to admit a social worker’s “lethality assessment” testimony after she could not say whether the tool had been tested and admitted an error rate of “30 or 40 percent.” Another Texas court allowed Danger Assessment testimony in Kingsbury v. State, 625 S.W.3d 686 (Tex. App. 2021), under a separate Texas “soft science” standard that Florida’s statute does not contain.

Uncharged prior acts. Questions 1, 2, 4, and 11 ask about weapons, threats, choking, and stalking at any time in the past. Under section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes, other acts are inadmissible to prove bad character or propensity, and the State must give written notice at least 10 days before trial to use them for another purpose. The assessment cannot be used to slip those allegations in without that process.

Confrontation. The alleged victim’s answers are hearsay. Under Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), statements to police are testimonial when the primary purpose is “to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.” Structured questions about the whole history of a relationship, asked after the scene is calm, fit that description.

How do our attorneys challenge a lethality assessment?

Our attorneys challenge a lethality assessment by getting the actual form, testing how it was given, and keeping the label away from the judge and jury. Here is the process we follow in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco cases:

1. Demand the completed form. The form is confidential, but section 741.29(2)(i) allows the State Attorney to release it “to the parties in a pending criminal prosecution as required by law.” We request it in discovery.
2. Compare the form to the narrative. If the report says “potentially lethal” but the form says otherwise, the report is wrong on its face, and we put that in front of the prosecutor and the judge.
3. Find out which box was checked. “Based on score” and “based on the officer’s belief” call for different attacks.
4. Read every answer. A “no” to question 3, meaning the alleged victim does not believe the accused will try to kill her, helps at bond.
5. Compare the answers to the evidence. A “yes” to choking with no injury, no strangulation charge, and no mention in the narrative is impeachment.
6. Check the officer’s training. Under section 741.29(2)(b), an officer who has not completed the training “may not administer” the assessment.
7. Watch the body camera. The statute requires the questions in the same or similar wording and order. Deviations matter.
8. File a motion in limine. We move to exclude the result, the word “lethal,” and any testimony interpreting the assessment before the jury is picked.

Our firm’s broader guide on how to fight a domestic violence battery charge in Florida covers the defenses to the underlying charge.

What should you do if your report says “potentially lethal”?

If your report says “potentially lethal,” get a defense attorney involved before first appearance or as soon after it as possible. Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.130, first appearance happens within 24 hours of arrest, and the judge sets release conditions using the arrest report.

• Do not contact the alleged victim, even to apologize. A no-contact order is almost always a condition of release.
• Do not discuss the incident on jail phones, texts, or social media. Jail calls are recorded.
• Write down what actually happened while it is fresh, and give it only to your lawyer.
• Ask your lawyer to request the lethality assessment form and the body camera video.

Because officers must give the assessment even when no one is arrested, some people learn about it while the case is still under review. Our firm offers representation before charges are filed, which can shape whether and how the State Attorney’s Office files charges.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I get a copy of the lethality assessment in my Florida domestic violence case?

Usually yes, through your defense attorney in discovery. The Brancato Law Firm requests the completed form and the body camera footage of the officer asking the questions whenever a report mentions the assessment. The form is exempt from public records, but section 741.29(2)(i) lets the State Attorney release it to the parties in a pending criminal case.

Does the accused person answer any questions on the lethality assessment?

No, all 12 questions are asked of the alleged victim, and the accused person has no input into the result. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm use that one-sided design to show judges that the label reflects one person’s account, not a balanced review.

Can domestic violence charges be dropped if the lethality assessment says “potentially lethal”?

Yes, the lethality assessment does not control the charging decision, and the State Attorney’s Office can still decline or dismiss the case. The Brancato Law Firm regularly works to have domestic violence charges dropped, and our guide on whether a victim can drop domestic violence charges in Florida explains who actually makes that decision.

Does a “potentially lethal” result make a domestic battery a felony?

No, the lethality assessment does not change the charge, which depends on the alleged conduct, any injury, and prior record. When a “potentially lethal” label appears in a misdemeanor battery report, The Brancato Law Firm treats it as a bond and evidence problem to address early, and you can learn more on our Tampa domestic violence lawyer page.

What if the alleged victim’s answers on the lethality assessment were exaggerated?

Exaggerated answers can be exposed, because nothing on the assessment has to be corroborated. Attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm compare every “yes” answer against the officer’s narrative, the photos, and the body camera, and use the conflicts at bond hearings and in cross-examination. The questions cover the whole relationship, so answers about old events are often the easiest to test.

Can an officer give the lethality assessment without training?

No, under section 741.29(2)(b), an officer may not administer the assessment without completing the required training, and every officer had to finish it by October 1, 2026. The Brancato Law Firm requests the officer’s training completion date, and an assessment given before the officer completed the course is a basis to challenge the result.

Talk to a Domestic Violence Defense Attorney Before First Appearance

The label on the report is written in the first hour of a case, and the first appearance judge reads it within a day. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, gets the lethality assessment form, tests how it was given, and fights to keep it from driving your bond or your trial. Call (813) 727-7159 today, before the next court date. For more about our defense strategies, visit our Domestic Violence Defense page.

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.
620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 727-7159
Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. is a Tampa-based criminal defense practice. We are not affiliated with any other Brancato-named law firms.

The ruling that decides many Florida sex crime trials comes before a single juror is sworn: whether the jury will hear about other accusations. I saw that play out again and again in the Major Crimes Unit, defending homicide, sex crime, and child abuse cases, and over more than 150 jury trials to verdict. Today I am the founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm, where our attorneys answer a Williams rule notice with depositions, an independent investigation of the prior accuser, and a targeted motion to exclude.

What is the Williams rule in Florida?

The Williams rule is Florida’s name for the law that controls when a jury may hear about crimes or bad acts other than the one charged. The general version, in section 90.404(2)(a), admits “similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts” only when it proves a material fact such as motive, opportunity, intent, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake. The same paragraph bars that evidence when it is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity.

The rule takes its name from Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959), a rape prosecution that began in a parking lot near Webb’s City in St. Petersburg. About six weeks before the charged attack, a 16-year-old found Ralph Williams hiding in the back of her car in the same lot at about the same hour. The Florida Supreme Court held that the earlier incident was admissible because it showed a plan, helped identify Williams, and answered his expected consent defense. The court also set the limit that still applies today: evidence whose only relevance is the accused’s character or propensity stays out.

The rule carries the most weight in sex crime prosecutions, where Florida law relaxes it, which is why our Tampa sex crimes lawyer team treats a Williams rule notice as one of the most important filings in the case.

How are sex crime cases different under Florida’s Williams rule?

Sex crime cases are different because Florida law relaxes the propensity ban when the charge is child molestation or a listed sexual offense. Two paragraphs of section 90.404 create that exception, and together they cover sexual battery, lewd or lascivious offenses involving children, and several related crimes.

• Paragraph (2)(b), child molestation. When the defendant is charged with child molestation, evidence of the defendant’s other acts of child molestation “is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.” The statute defines child molestation by a list of offenses committed against a person 16 years of age or younger.
• Paragraph (2)(c), sexual offenses. When the defendant is charged with a listed sexual offense, such as sexual battery under section 794.011, evidence of the defendant’s other sexual offenses is admissible on the same terms. The Legislature added this paragraph in 2011, extending the child molestation approach to sexual offenses against victims of any age.

The Florida Supreme Court explained the reach of the child molestation paragraph in McLean v. State, 934 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 2006), a Second District case in which the State offered testimony about earlier molestation to corroborate a child’s account. The court held that paragraph (2)(b) admits other acts regardless of whether they share any similarity or occurred within the family, and upheld the statute where identity was not disputed. The same opinion warned that section 90.403 keeps the statute from opening “the door to introduction of any and all propensity evidence in sexual molestation cases.” The court also left open whether the statute is constitutional when identity is disputed, an open question that matters whenever a case turns on who committed the act.

The exposure is wide. In October 2024, 1,999 registered sex offenders lived in Hillsborough County communities, with 1,579 in Pinellas and 872 in Pasco, according to the Florida Legislature’s OPPAGA Report 24-11 (December 2024). For anyone in that group who faces a new sex charge, the prior conviction is a likely candidate for a Williams rule notice.

What must the State prove before a jury hears about another accusation?

The State must clear five safeguards before a jury hears about a collateral act in a sex crime case. The first comes from the statute’s notice provision, and the rest come from McLean and section 90.403.

1. Written notice. Under section 90.404(2)(d), the State must serve the defense, no fewer than 10 days before trial, a written statement of the other acts it intends to offer, described with the particularity required of an indictment or information. No notice is required for evidence used only to impeach or in rebuttal.
2. Clear and convincing proof. Before considering admission, the judge must find that the other act was proved by clear and convincing evidence. A rumor, a hunch, or an unsworn complaint should not meet that standard.
3. A prejudice balancing test. Under section 90.403, relevant evidence is inadmissible when the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, or needless cumulative evidence substantially outweighs its probative value. McLean told judges to weigh similarity, closeness in time, frequency, and intervening circumstances, plus any factor unique to the case.
4. No feature of the trial. The judge must keep the collateral act from becoming a feature of the trial. When necessary, the court should exclude the evidence or substantially limit how much of it the jury hears.
5. A limiting instruction. When the evidence comes in, the court must, if asked, tell jurors the limited purpose for which they may consider it. At the close of the evidence, the jury must again be told that limited purpose and that the defendant cannot be convicted of a charge not in the information.

Can an accusation that never led to charges be used against you?

Yes. A prior accusation does not need an arrest, a charge, or a conviction to qualify as Williams rule evidence, as long as the State can prove the act by clear and convincing evidence and the evidence survives the balancing test. Florida law draws one firm line, however, and it depends on how the earlier accusation ended.

In State v. Perkins, 349 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1977), the Florida Supreme Court held that evidence of a crime for which the defendant was acquitted is not admissible in a later trial, calling it fundamentally unfair to make a defendant defend the same accusation twice. By contrast, in Holland v. State, 466 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1985), the court refused to extend that protection to a robbery charge the State had dropped, because a nolle prosequi (a prosecutor’s decision to abandon a charge) may have nothing to do with the strength of the evidence.

What happens when propensity evidence takes over a trial?

When evidence that proves only character takes over a trial, an appellate court can reverse the conviction even without a defense objection. Two lessons follow: jurors struggle to set that evidence aside, and judges know it.

Research supports that concern. In a mock-jury study of 160 adults published in Law and Human Behavior in 1985, R. L. Wissler and M. J. Saks found that conviction rates were highest when the defendant’s prior conviction was for a crime similar to the one charged, and that jurors did not limit their use of the record as the judge’s instruction directed (NCJRS abstract). For that reason, a limiting instruction should be the last safeguard, after the judge has already screened the evidence.

Green v. State, No. 2D2024-1803 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 4, 2026), a Pinellas County sexual battery case, shows the danger. The State introduced a steak knife found in a recessed area of Gregory Green’s van and two sealed, unused condoms, although no evidence connected either item to the crimes. Prosecutors returned to the items through a crime scene technician and a detective, and then told jurors in closing that the knife and condoms were “odd things” they should consider. The Second District held that the items’ only possible relevance was bad character or propensity. Because defense counsel never objected, the court applied fundamental error review, and it found the error, combined with improper prosecutorial comments, required reversal of the sexual battery and battery convictions and a new trial.

Can the defense use someone else’s prior acts? Torbit v. State (2026)

Yes, but only under the general Williams rule, and only with close similarity. A July 2026 First District decision shows how narrow that path is in sex crime cases.

What happened in Torbit

Torbit v. State, No. 1D2024-1393 (Fla. 1st DCA July 29, 2026), arose from a Leon County trial for sexual battery on a victim who was physically helpless to resist. The complainant, T.B., ranged from highly intoxicated to barely conscious during a night of sexual activity in 2018 involving Logan Torbit, another man named Pasinski, and a 17-year-old girl. Pasinski, T.B., and the 17-year-old all testified for the State. Torbit’s defense was that Pasinski, not Torbit, assaulted T.B.

To support that theory, Torbit sought to introduce evidence that Pasinski allegedly sexually battered a different woman, B.B., in May 2019, more than ten months later. Officers found B.B. in a towel because Pasinski had told her to shower. Torbit argued the shower instruction matched how Pasinski and the 17-year-old had bathed T.B. on the night in question, suggesting Pasinski had learned to remove DNA. He offered it as “reverse Williams rule” evidence under paragraph (2)(c), relied on bodycam footage, and specifically disclaimed paragraph (2)(a). The trial court excluded the evidence, and the jury convicted. Torbit faced up to 30 years but received a downward departure of three years in prison followed by three years of sex offender probation.

What the First District held

The First District affirmed on two grounds:

• Paragraph (2)(c) covers only the defendant. By its terms, the paragraph admits evidence of “the defendant’s commission” of other sexual offenses, so it does not reach a collateral offense committed by someone else.
• No proffer, no review. Even if the paragraph applied, Torbit never proffered B.B.’s testimony, so the appellate court had no record to judge what she would have said or how the trial court applied the McLean factors.

Judge Treadwell concurred to make the point sharper. He wrote that paragraph (2)(c) “creates an opportunity only for the prosecution,” so there is no reverse rule to be found in its text. He also explained that Torbit never raised a due process or Confrontation Clause argument in the trial court, which left any constitutional claim unpreserved. The concurrence did not endorse a reverse rule under (2)(c), and it did not decide the constitutional question.

What the defense can still do

The defense still has the traditional reverse Williams rule under paragraph (2)(a). In State v. Savino, 567 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1990), a defendant charged with killing his six-year-old stepson tried to show that his wife had killed her infant daughter years earlier. The Florida Supreme Court held that defense-offered similar fact evidence is judged by the same standard as the State’s, which for identity means “a close similarity of facts, a unique or ‘fingerprint’ type of information,” and it upheld the exclusion. Six weeks after Torbit, Wellons v. State, No. 4D2025-2340 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 9, 2026), added a useful counterweight: the Fourth District agreed that a prior shooting at the defendant’s home was too dissimilar to qualify as reverse Williams rule evidence, yet reversed a murder conviction because the same evidence was admissible for another purpose, to explain why the defendant ran.

Three lessons from these cases shape how our firm tries sex cases:

1. Choose the right paragraph. Offer third-party collateral acts under (2)(a) and build the fingerprint-level similarity Savino requires.
2. Proffer the witness. Put the collateral witness’s actual testimony on the record outside the jury’s presence, because an appellate court will not guess.
3. Raise every ground at trial. State the due process, confrontation, and right-to-present-a-defense arguments to the trial judge, and offer any alternative purpose for the evidence, as the defense did in Wellons. Our post on why your lawyer must object at trial explains why preservation decides so many appeals.

How do our attorneys fight Williams rule evidence?

Our attorneys fight Williams rule evidence by attacking the prior accusation on facts first and on law second. A collateral accuser who looks strong in a police report often looks very different after a deposition and an independent investigation.

1. Investigate the prior accuser. We depose the collateral witness, gather records and social media, interview third parties, and look for motive, delay in reporting, and contradictions.
2. Challenge the notice. We hold the State to the 10-day deadline and the particularity requirement, and we object when the notice is vague about dates, places, or acts.
3. Force the clear and convincing finding. We ask the court to hear live testimony at a pretrial hearing and to rule on the proof standard before any balancing.
4. Argue dissimilarity and remoteness. We line up the differences in age, relationship, location, manner, and timing that McLean tells judges to weigh.
5. Limit what the jury hears. If some evidence comes in, we ask the court to restrict the number of witnesses and exhibits and to keep the prosecutor from making the other act the centerpiece of closing argument.
6. Protect the record. We request limiting instructions at the moment of admission and in the final charge, and we object to every improper use so the issue survives for appeal.

Losing the pretrial hearing does not end the issue. The defense can still limit how the evidence is used at trial, object when it starts to dominate the case, and raise the ruling on appeal.

Related rules often work alongside this one. Florida’s rape shield law limits evidence of the complainant’s sexual history, the child hearsay exception controls a child’s out-of-court statements, and a motion to sever can keep unrelated counts from being tried together. When the defense is that the encounter was consensual, our guide to the consent defense explains how prior-act evidence can shape that strategy.

When should you talk to a lawyer about a prior accusation?

You should talk to a lawyer as soon as you learn that detectives are investigating a sex crime allegation, before any charge is filed if possible. The 10-day notice rule sets only the State’s minimum, and a proper investigation of a collateral accuser takes far longer.

The window before charges is often the most valuable. The State Attorney’s Office reviews every case before deciding to prosecute, and during that window our attorneys can present evidence and context directly to the assigned prosecutor. Our page on representation before charges are filed explains how that process works.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Sex Crimes page.

Frequently asked questions

Can the State use a sex charge I was acquitted of in Florida?

No. Under State v. Perkins, evidence of a crime for which a jury acquitted you is not admissible against you in a later trial, although a charge the State simply dropped can still be offered if it meets the other requirements. The Brancato Law Firm checks the disposition of every prior case listed in a Williams rule notice and moves to exclude any acquitted conduct before trial.

How old can a prior accusation be and still come in under the Williams rule?

Florida sets no fixed cutoff, but closeness in time is one of the factors a judge must weigh under McLean, and the presence or absence of intervening circumstances matters too. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm build a timeline of the prior accusation and the charged act to show the court how remote and different the two events are. Our Tampa sex crime defense attorneys use that timeline at the pretrial hearing.

Does the prosecutor have to tell my lawyer before using prior accusations at trial?

Yes. Section 90.404(2)(d) requires written notice no fewer than 10 days before trial, describing the other acts with the particularity of a charging document, though no notice is needed for impeachment or rebuttal evidence. The Brancato Law Firm reviews every notice for timing and detail and objects when it falls short.

What should I do if detectives are contacting people from my past during a sex crime investigation?

Decline to give a statement and get a lawyer involved right away, because investigators often look for other accusers before a charging decision. The Brancato Law Firm can step in at that stage through pre-file advocacy, gathering our own evidence and presenting it to the prosecutor before charges are filed.

Is the Williams rule the same as Florida’s rape shield law?

No. The Williams rule governs evidence about the accused’s other acts, while the rape shield law in section 794.022 limits evidence about the complainant’s prior sexual conduct. The Brancato Law Firm litigates both rules when a case calls for it, and our post on Florida’s rape shield law covers its exceptions.

Can a Williams rule error get a sex crime conviction reversed on appeal?

Yes. Florida appellate courts reverse when collateral or propensity evidence was wrongly admitted and the error was not harmless, as the Second District did in Green v. State in 2026. At trial, The Brancato Law Firm makes a clear record with objections, proffers, and requests for limiting instructions so that any error can be reviewed on appeal.

Talk to a Tampa sex crimes defense team now

Before you talk to detectives, or to anyone from your past, about an accusation, call The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. at (813) 727-7159. Founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, our firm starts investigating collateral accusers as soon as we are retained, because the State’s Williams rule notice can arrive as late as 10 days before trial and the work to answer it takes far longer. Call us at any hour.

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.
620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 727-7159
Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. is a Tampa-based criminal defense practice. We are not affiliated with any other Brancato-named law firms.